Simple. Different teams, different needs. Our team in 08-09 needed a guy like Artest. He brought a toughness and edge to our team which was needed especially when TMac went down. The Rockets of 09-10 with Yao out and our shift to a motion and transition system needed a guy like Ariza. Artest would have stopped the ball in our motion offense and his strong personality would have made it difficult for our young guys to emerge on their own. Career-wise, Artest has played longer and proved his worth longer than Ariza so far. Fit for the Lakers? Well they won a ring with Ariza, and this year is not yet over, so ... Artest wins his PT with his defense; his offense was only good in Game 3 of the Jazz series. The Lakers do not really need him to score to be able to win.
1) They are definitely related. Being part of a team that makes the second round is either important or it's not. THe only difference is how much you contributed to it and how much of it you were responsible for. In Artest's case, he took T-Mac's team to the second round playing T-Mac position, role, everything. 2) Yes, we all realize that. But neither you or him believe that he would be a 20-shots-per-game player. His goal was to expand his role from taking 7.3 shots and never handling the ball to taking more shots and sometimes creating plays for himself and others. He took 13.9 shots per game, heavily skewed towards the part of the season when Scola and Brooks were the main scorers. Considering his shots per minute went down after the K-Mart trade, his FG% up, and his turnovers down, I would say he found his peace without how much expansion he was capable of. He signed for the MLE, he knows he's not a go-to scorer. He still crashes the boards and he still puts in the effort on defense. His expansion was not a dramatic increase in scoring, rather a more well rounded array of skills - more scoring opportunities, more handling, and hopefully more maturity. You also seem to be assuming that this would be an eternal ongoing expansion. It may very well be that he tested his limits this season and will be comfortable with a role similar to the Lakers role, but with way more minutes and slightly more polished offensive skills. 3) It is as good an indication as any person can have. I would llike to hear from you what is a better indication for how a person will perform as a 5th option of an aspiring contender than how he performed as a 5th option on a championship team. We have still not seen him as 5th offensive option, which is exactly what he will be next season. Brooks, Martin, Scola and Yao - you can not tell me with a straight face that Trevor believes he should overtake one of those people as a scoring option. 4) Trevor does not have "issues", he had an issue. You don't need to be able to dribble a basketball to be a success at less than $6.5m in the NBA, especially as a 5th offensive option at the SF position where the post will be dominated by Yao/Scola and spaced with the supreme shooting skills of the Brooks/Martin tandem. If he shoots 45%, grabs 5+ rebounds, 2-3 assists and a couple of steals he will be worth the money. His post-trade numbers were in this vicinity, with Chuck Hayes (an offensive liability) at C. 5) Agree that he's no prime Battier. Disagree that he's a poor defender. Everyone swingman's defense drops when there's no weakside shotblocking, even Battier. 6) Considering his age, his CV and his improvement over the season, I have to disagree with you. To each his own, I can see your case for his skills not being worth less than $6.5 million, but still disagree. Considering you thought Rasheed Wallace would be worth that money, that's somewhat surprising. 7) That's a noble goal, but a worthless one for an aspiring contender. This organization decided that they want to contend NOW. Being under the luxury tax is not in the top half of our priority list. "Hmmm.... Chance at signing a big FA, chance at trading for a big FA, or being under the luxury tax?" 8) I agree that his technical skills are below average in dribbling and his shot selection is poor when given the green light. I also agree that he may not be the best fit for Adelman's Sacramento system. I believe Adelman has a depth of knowledge to have a system which accomodates the team's inventory. This team needs a defensive guy at the 3, and one who can run. Adelman's system has not been very succesful when carrying 5 guys who can't defend - I think he recognizes that. I think we need to recognize that. We also need to recognize the downside of the Ariza trade - that it's very little, but the potential return was very high, and the current expected return is good. He certainly did NOT meet my initial expectations. He certainly didn't have a succesful year all round. But watching the last 15-20 games of the season, I saw why it's good to have Ariza as an asset. Whether that's in a trade or not, I don't care. I am just surprised by your comment that it was a bad signing. Considering the results and the strategic nature of the signing and the current circumstances of the team, this was a good signing. If this was the Wolves or the Warriors signing him, I would agree with most of your comments. Given all the variables though, I have to say I'm with Morey on this one. I believe that next season Ariza will either have a good season with the Rockets or will be part of a trade that makes the Rockets better. The chances of him staying and sucking as he did early in the season are small IMO.
No, but I'm not going to base my opinion of the situation on how I think things would go down in the locker room. We don't know who the guys leading the charge in practice are, but to say it can't be one person because he doesn't score a lot is ridiculous. They know each other on a much deeper level than a box score which is basicaly all we are privledged to.
Where did I ever say Rasheed Wallace was worth the MLE....it is like George Bush saying Iraq was behind 9-11....just because you say it over and over does not make it true. For the record, I can not stand Rasheed Wallace. As for Ariza, I think we overpaid, you do not......we are not going to agree. Sub 40% shooting, inability to stay in front of your man, and can't dribble...pass. DD
Please go back and watch the Blazers series from last year. Ron DID lead us to the clinching win and into the second round. He had big plays down the stretch that allowed us to finish them off. Remember him falling into the stands in Game 6 I believe? He was swarmed by fans and joked about taking a sip of beer from one of the fans. I remember saying to myself as we won game 6, "Ron, you have just won a place in Rockets fans hearts with this win." Now, the beginning of the series was a bit different, but he closed it out strong.
It's obvious that Ariza's game couldn't be expanded to fill the exact hole that Artest was leaving behind because Ariza doesn't have the play making ability that Ron or Tmac had but when Ariza wasn't starting along side Battier, his game flourished. Everybody here should recognize that Ariza's strengths lie in playing the passing lanes and gambling (just like Ron does) but also in spot up shooting and slashing to the basket. He is not a play maker and playing along side Battier in that horrendous lineup early on exposed some deficiencies in his game. With that being said, I think the main goal for Morey & co was to acquire Ariza and try to have him expand his game in hopes that he would be a more well rounded player by the time Yao got back. I'll reserve judgment on Ariza until next year but I think he'll fit into next years team very well assuming Yao is back and he plays to his strengths which I'm sure he's figured out after a year of development and being allowed the opportunity to get serious burn. Wasn't that what this past year was all about for all our young players? Development?
Just gos to show how meaningless of an accomplishment that is on an individual level. Even a cancerous guy like Ron can do it if the team is good enough/opposition weak enough.
For one thing I think his defense is better than you give him credit for. He is definately above average defensively. He, like Battier, suffered from not having anybody on the inside to contest shots. You can only take away so much from offensive players, and when you're the only thing in between them and a layup...well.. Also you've used the argument that Ariza has always been a bad shooter. Well he was a pretty efficient player in LA shooting 46% from the field. His 3P% wasn't very good (32%) but overall he was solid. This year he started off terrible, but towards the end of the year when he got moved back to his natural SF position with Martin taking the bulk of the scoring load, his efficiency returned to their LA level (43% FG and 38% 3. Lower FG but same relative efficiency) Basically I would argue that he's actually gotten better and will be a relatively efficient score from here on out. His 3 point shooting has improved. His FG% will always be lower do to the number of 3's he takes, however if he continues to take them at 38% then I say keep shooting.
My bad, a bunch of people said it and you didn't refute so I mistakenly assumed it to be true. Agree to disagree then. I don't need to cherry pick qualities to suit my argument.
Ariza is an average player making too much money. Ron was awesome with the Rockets I really don't understand people's problems with him. It's not his fault T-Whack and Yao can't play a full season. Ron was pure excitement on this team, something that is not measured in the stat sheet. So he made a few boneheaded plays, so what. He never lost a game for us. But he did help us win. Can't question his effort.
